Why is this surprising? Seems to me if you want low iso dr you go Nikon, if you want high iso performance you go canon.

I would tend to agree with your statement regarding the D800 for example, which i find unusable above ISO 1600 personally. However, in terms of high ISO, the Nikon D4 is on par or slightly better then the 1DX.

Incidently, i find focus so slow on my D800 that when shooting at iso 100 indoors with a flash, i prefers the 1DX. With the right lens it provides amazing result. I did not expect that...off topic here but thought i would share...

I don't even see why these camera's are being compared. The 5D3 is equal or better in every way except in DR. Especially the AF, which just makes any nikon camera cry and weep in the corner.

This is a typical illogical statementTell me in what way, I know at least 3 journalists and photographers at different photo magazines who are trying out the AF from Nikon and Canonit takes a month to use different tests to determine what benefits one or the other system has.

Don't be so naive, 15-cross type points for nikon, 41-crosstype for canon and 5 of those are double cross-type which nikon doesn't have, Nor any other manufacturer.

Yes, I've demoed nikons great 51 point system but Canon's just takes it lunch money away.

Plus, most agency's have Nikon and Canon gear but so what? You should know better that real photogs will chose a camera mostly on ergos than anything else. so nikon shooter will stay with nikon and Canon shooters will stay with canon because of muscle memory.

then read my answer again about the time it takes to evaluate a AF system

Read my answer again, I've already have. You know your quite naive that the 51-point system is almost exactly the same from the D3-D700 system. They use a multi-cam 3500 Series AF system, which is good but old already which the canon 61-point system make it show its age.

I've always felt its AF was hesitant, while the canon just hits period.

The burden of proof is on you, and many others have already agreed that the 61-Point AF system is the best thing since sliced bread.

I am expecting the "I am rubber, you are glue" argument pretty soon. =) Lets face it, there are people who will always prefer one system over the other, but from the vast majority of review websites, the 5d3 does beat the D800 in speed and accuracy while the d800 was more consistent, but always a hair off... that being said, the 5d3 would then beat the D600, and the D600 does beat the new canon camera.... the rest is pure semantics.

Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different scenes. Canon have chosen for example up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.It would take a very long time to test out which of the systems is generally best, it is probably not doable.There are reports that the Canon's AF seems faster but the number of keepers at moving subject is greater in Nikon, after some time when colleagues have tried out made we usually emerge which camera produces the best keepers in similar situations, as it emerged with 1dmk3 and d3

First off, the D600's AF system is NOT the same as that found in the D4 or D800. The d600 only has 39 af points, which is essentially a "revamped" D7000 AF. If you look around enough, you will

I primarily shoot sports so AF is critical for me. That being said, a few weeks ago I was shooting volleyball alongside a D4 user. He was switching between his 24-70 and 70-200. I was using my 5d3 paired with my 70-200. When reviewing photos between plays he kept complaining that his D4 kept missing. Mind you this is volleyball, which is a hard sport to shoot in and of itself. However, even for the simplest shots i.e. when the players were serving (nobody else in the frame), his D4 had trouble locking on.

Nearly all of my shots were keepers. Anything I missed was simply user error. I find myself having a hard time in post-processing because its hard to pick out which ones to keep and which to delete.

Shooting through the net, my 5D3 had no problem locking on to the players. His D4 on the other hand, not so much. And from what I keep hearing, Canon's new 61 AF system just works and does it brilliantly. The D4 on the other hand works, but doesn't do anything extraordinary.

On another note, the D600 is capable of shooting sports. I met a guy who had a D4, a D800, and a D600. He was testing out the D600 to see its capabilities as a backup sports body. He seemed to be happy with it. However, he was NOT happy that it did not have a dedicated back-button AF.

The d600 was too small small for my hands (even the 5D3 is a little small for me) and I never liked the button layout/ergonomics of Nikon bodies. The 5D3 is thicker and feels much beefier in my hands. The grip on the Nikon is too small and narrow, which makes my fingers feel very cramped.

Somebody mentioned earlier that people who've used the systems long enough prefer one over the other simply due to ergonomics. I've had my fair share of uses of Nikon bodies and they just don't feel right in my big hands.

Both systems perform so similarly in real world situations (stop oogling over the specs) that it doesn't really matter which system you use. I'm pretty sure that before whatever new camera came along you had absolutely no problems getting the necessary shots.

Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different scenes. Canon have chosen for example up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.It would take a very long time to test out which of the systems is generally best, it is probably not doable.There are reports that the Canon's AF seems faster but the number of keepers at moving subject is greater in Nikon, after some time when colleagues have tried out made we usually emerge which camera produces the best keepers in similar situations, as it emerged with 1dmk3 and d3

First off, the D600's AF system is NOT the same as that found in the D4 or D800. The d600 only has 39 af points, which is essentially a "revamped" D7000 AF. If you look around enough, you will

I primarily shoot sports so AF is critical for me. That being said, a few weeks ago I was shooting volleyball alongside a D4 user. He was switching between his 24-70 and 70-200. I was using my 5d3 paired with my 70-200. When reviewing photos between plays he kept complaining that his D4 kept missing. Mind you this is volleyball, which is a hard sport to shoot in and of itself. However, even for the simplest shots i.e. when the players were serving (nobody else in the frame), his D4 had trouble locking on.

Nearly all of my shots were keepers. Anything I missed was simply user error. I find myself having a hard time in post-processing because its hard to pick out which ones to keep and which to delete.

Shooting through the net, my 5D3 had no problem locking on to the players. His D4 on the other hand, not so much. And from what I keep hearing, Canon's new 61 AF system just works and does it brilliantly. The D4 on the other hand works, but doesn't do anything extraordinary.

On another note, the D600 is capable of shooting sports. I met a guy who had a D4, a D800, and a D600. He was testing out the D600 to see its capabilities as a backup sports body. He seemed to be happy with it. However, he was NOT happy that it did not have a dedicated back-button AF.

The d600 was too small small for my hands (even the 5D3 is a little small for me) and I never liked the button layout/ergonomics of Nikon bodies. The 5D3 is thicker and feels much beefier in my hands. The grip on the Nikon is too small and narrow, which makes my fingers feel very cramped.

Somebody mentioned earlier that people who've used the systems long enough prefer one over the other simply due to ergonomics. I've had my fair share of uses of Nikon bodies and they just don't feel right in my big hands.

Both systems perform so similarly in real world situations (stop oogling over the specs) that it doesn't really matter which system you use. I'm pretty sure that before whatever new camera came along you had absolutely no problems getting the necessary shots.

One of the biggest complaints of my fellow user is that even in low ISO, primarily a game whereby it is very sunny and one team has white jerseys, the D4 shows a higher OOF rate than the 1DX (which is 0). The 1D Mark IV had this same problem. Furthermore, the 1DX beats the living crap out of the D4 where football lighting is low. So Canon wins with the top end at least, thus eliminating validity of those claiming that ALL Nikon cameras outperform their respective Canon counterparts.

The only metric I go by is keepers when I get home on my computer, and so far yes, the 5D3 and 1D4 have had a fair share of misses, but the 1DX I have had absolutely no misses.

Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different scenes. Canon have chosen for example up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.It would take a very long time to test out which of the systems is generally best, it is probably not doable.There are reports that the Canon's AF seems faster but the number of keepers at moving subject is greater in Nikon, after some time when colleagues have tried out made we usually emerge which camera produces the best keepers in similar situations, as it emerged with 1dmk3 and d3

First off, the D600's AF system is NOT the same as that found in the D4 or D800. The d600 only has 39 af points, which is essentially a "revamped" D7000 AF. If you look around enough, you will

I primarily shoot sports so AF is critical for me. That being said, a few weeks ago I was shooting volleyball alongside a D4 user. He was switching between his 24-70 and 70-200. I was using my 5d3 paired with my 70-200. When reviewing photos between plays he kept complaining that his D4 kept missing. Mind you this is volleyball, which is a hard sport to shoot in and of itself. However, even for the simplest shots i.e. when the players were serving (nobody else in the frame), his D4 had trouble locking on.

Nearly all of my shots were keepers. Anything I missed was simply user error. I find myself having a hard time in post-processing because its hard to pick out which ones to keep and which to delete.

Shooting through the net, my 5D3 had no problem locking on to the players. His D4 on the other hand, not so much. And from what I keep hearing, Canon's new 61 AF system just works and does it brilliantly. The D4 on the other hand works, but doesn't do anything extraordinary.

On another note, the D600 is capable of shooting sports. I met a guy who had a D4, a D800, and a D600. He was testing out the D600 to see its capabilities as a backup sports body. He seemed to be happy with it. However, he was NOT happy that it did not have a dedicated back-button AF.

The d600 was too small small for my hands (even the 5D3 is a little small for me) and I never liked the button layout/ergonomics of Nikon bodies. The 5D3 is thicker and feels much beefier in my hands. The grip on the Nikon is too small and narrow, which makes my fingers feel very cramped.

Somebody mentioned earlier that people who've used the systems long enough prefer one over the other simply due to ergonomics. I've had my fair share of uses of Nikon bodies and they just don't feel right in my big hands.

Both systems perform so similarly in real world situations (stop oogling over the specs) that it doesn't really matter which system you use. I'm pretty sure that before whatever new camera came along you had absolutely no problems getting the necessary shots.

One of the biggest complaints of my fellow user is that even in low ISO, primarily a game whereby it is very sunny and one team has white jerseys, the D4 shows a higher OOF rate than the 1DX (which is 0). The 1D Mark IV had this same problem. Furthermore, the 1DX beats the living crap out of the D4 where football lighting is low. So Canon wins with the top end at least, thus eliminating validity of those claiming that ALL Nikon cameras outperform their respective Canon counterparts.

The only metric I go by is keepers when I get home on my computer, and so far yes, the 5D3 and 1D4 have had a fair share of misses, but the 1DX I have had absolutely no misses.

Aye. I've heard the same thing from all the camera reviewers as well, including those who have historically been die-hard Nikon users: The 1D X AF system is unbeatable.

Even in the bird and wildlife photography arena, which is admittedly a lot smaller, both Canon and Nikon users have raved about the 1D X AF system. I've even read a couple reviews that indicate the 1D X's facial recognition works with animals and birds, often in profile. O_o As bird photographer myself, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a 1D X, but as I don't make much money off of my photography, its really hard to justify the $7000 expenditure (especially on top of the $10k+ glass I'd need to go along with it.)

From what I read it is an autofocus design choice a manufacturer has to make. Focus on designing for performance at large apertures or small ones. Apparently, at this point in tech, you can't have excellence at both. The latest AF systems show a particular differing design, that is all.

If you shoot large aperture portraiture, etc, the Canon AF design of the 5D3 and 1DX etc are better suited. If you shoot birds/wildlife, Nikon's latest design is beneficial.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 07:27:28 PM by Tammy »

Logged

5D Mk III - 24-70L Mk II - 24L Mk II - 100L - 135L - 50mm F/1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Gadger

I've got both the Canon 5D mk lll and the Nikon D600. Without the analysing between them, for me I bought the Nikon D600 to use while travelling, being ideal for lighter, smaller and reduced the lens weight.

My Canon lens 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L, 100-400 4/5.6L (also used to take the 70-200 2.8L IS, but stopped this lens a while ago due to the weight) to the Nikon lens setup of 16-35 F4 VR and 28-300 VR.

I've got a Virgin flight coming up with just 6KG handle luggage allowance and one bag only. I've been checked at the check-in and caught a couple of times, over the limit. Then having to quickly spread the weight between the hold suite cases, which I don't like letting my expensive Canon white lens going in the hold.

The only metric I go by is keepers when I get home on my computer, and so far yes, the 5D3 and 1D4 have had a fair share of misses, but the 1DX I have had absolutely no misses.[/quote]

Aye. I've heard the same thing from all the camera reviewers as well, including those who have historically been die-hard Nikon users: The 1D X AF system is unbeatable.

Even in the bird and wildlife photography arena, which is admittedly a lot smaller, both Canon and Nikon users have raved about the 1D X AF system. I've even read a couple reviews that indicate the 1D X's facial recognition works with animals and birds, often in profile. O_o As bird photographer myself, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a 1D X, but as I don't make much money off of my photography, its really hard to justify the $7000 expenditure (especially on top of the $10k+ glass I'd need to go along with it.)[/quote]

show me evidence[/quote]

I don't owe you any evidence, because I really don't give a crap what you think, honestly. All I know is that I have a pair of 1DX's, I'm making money, and I'm not having any misses. I'm happy. Are you?